Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Lemons, Agee, * and
Goodwyn, JJ., and Russell, S.J.
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA
OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR.
v. Record No. 071421 September 12, 2008
LESLIE C. ELY, ET AL.
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
I.
In these consolidated appeals from the Court of Appeals,
we consider whether certain policies of workers' compensation
and employers' liability insurance were "nonrenewed by the
insurer" within the intendment of Code § 65.2-804(B), thereby
requiring the insurer to provide notice to the Virginia
Workers' Compensation Commission before the policies could be
terminated.
II.
A.
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America
(Travelers) issued a workers' compensation and employers'
liability insurance policy to Graycon, Inc. The policy was
effective July 30, 2003 through July 30, 2004. In May 2004,
Travelers informed Graycon by letter that the policy would
expire on July 30, 2004 unless Graycon paid the renewal
*
Justice Agee participated in the hearing and decision of
this case prior to his retirement from the Court on June 30,
premium and renewed the policy. Travelers also informed
Graycon in the letter that "[i]n order to avoid a lapse in
coverage, your renewal payment must be received by the due
date shown on your bill" and that if the premium was not
received by the due date, the "policy will expire." Graycon
did not submit the premium before the due date.
On September 17, 2004, Leslie C. Ely was injured while
performing work on a house that was being constructed. J.F.
Schoch Building Corporation, the general contractor, retained
Bruce Gray Construction as a subcontractor. Bruce Gray
Construction, in turn, retained Graycon, Inc., as a
subcontractor, and Ely "was working for Graycon at the time of
his injury." Ely submitted a workers' compensation claim, and
Travelers denied coverage of the claim because Graycon failed
to pay the premium before the due date.
Ely filed a claim for benefits with the Virginia Workers'
Compensation Commission (the Commission), and a deputy
commissioner concluded that the workers' compensation
insurance policy issued by Travelers was not in effect at the
time of Ely's accident, even though Travelers did not notify
the Commission that the policy had expired. The Building
Insurance Association, Inc., a statutory employer's insurer,
appeared before the Commission and argued that the policy of
2008.
2
insurance remained in effect because of Travelers' failure to
provide notice to the Commission. The Commission rejected the
deputy commissioner's opinion and held that Travelers'
workers' compensation and employers' liability insurance
policy issued to Graycon remained in effect at the time of
Ely's accident because Travelers failed to notify the
Commission that the policy had not been renewed. The
Commission held that the policy remained in effect and that
Travelers is "responsible for [the] benefits associated with
[Ely's] compensable injury by accident." Travelers appealed
to the Court of Appeals.
B.
Travelers issued a workers' compensation and employers'
liability insurance policy to Willie M. Thomas Home
Improvements (Thomas Home Improvements). The policy was
effective October 25, 2003 through October 25, 2004. In
August 2004, Travelers sent Thomas Home Improvements a letter
offering to renew the policy. Travelers also submitted a
renewal premium notice and a bill for the new premium, but
Thomas Home Improvements failed to pay the premium.
On December 16, 2004, Matthew L. Bailey, an employee of
Thomas Home Improvements, was injured while working within the
scope and course of his employment. He submitted a workers'
compensation claim. Travelers denied coverage of the claim
3
because it considered the Thomas Home Improvements policy to
have expired since the renewal premium had not been paid.
Bailey filed a claim for benefits with the Commission. A
deputy commissioner held that Travelers was required to pay
benefits because it failed to notify the Commission of "the
non-renewal of the employer's policy" that Travelers had
issued. The Uninsured Employers' Fund of Virginia appeared
before the Commission and supported the deputy commissioner's
decision. The Commission agreed with the deputy commissioner
and entered an order holding that Travelers is "responsible
for [the] benefits associated with [Bailey's] compensable
injury by accident." Travelers appealed to the Court of
Appeals.
C.
The Court of Appeals consolidated the aforementioned
cases, and a panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the
Commission's orders. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Ely,
49 Va. App. 271, 640 S.E.2d 520 (2007). Upon a rehearing en
banc, an evenly divided Court of Appeals approved the
Commission's orders, and the court did not issue an opinion.
Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Ely, 49 Va. App. 807, 645
S.E.2d 342 (2007). Travelers appeals.
III.
Code § 65.2-804(B) states:
4
"B. No policy of insurance hereafter issued
under the provisions of this title, nor any
membership agreement in a group self-insurance
association, shall be cancelled or nonrenewed by the
insurer issuing such policy or by the group self-
insurance association cancelling or nonrenewing such
membership, except on thirty days' notice to the
employer and the Workers' Compensation Commission,
unless the employer has obtained other insurance and
the Workers' Compensation Commission is notified of
that fact by the insurer assuming the risk, or
unless, in the event of cancellation, said
cancellation is for nonpayment of premiums; then ten
days' notice shall be given the employer and the
Workers' Compensation Commission."
(Emphasis added).
Travelers argues that the workers' compensation and
employers' liability insurance policies that it issued to
Graycon and Thomas Home Improvements expired when they failed
to pay the premiums and renew the policies. Continuing,
Travelers asserts that Code § 65.2-804(B) is unambiguous, and
pursuant to the plain language of this statute, Travelers had
no statutory obligation to notify the Commission that the
policy had expired because the insurance policies were not
"cancelled or nonrenewed by the insurer issuing such policy"
within the meaning of Code § 65.2-804(B).
Responding, Thomas Home Improvements, Graycon, J.F.
Schoch Building Corporation, Uninsured Employers' Fund, and
Building Insurance Association, Inc. (hereinafter collectively
referred to as Employers), argue that Code § 65.2-804(B) is
ambiguous and that the notice requirements contained in this
5
statute apply to all "nonrenewals, irrespective . . . whether
it was the insurer or the employer who initiated the
nonrenewal." Continuing, the Employers assert that the
Commission correctly determined that the insurance policies
remained in effect when Ely and Bailey were injured because
Travelers failed to give the statutorily prescribed notices.
We disagree with the Employers' contentions.
The construction of a statute presents a question of law
that this Court reviews de novo on appeal. Jackson v.
Commonwealth, 274 Va. 630, 633, 652 S.E.2d 111, 113, (2007);
accord Robinson v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 45, 51, 645 S.E.2d
470, 473 (2007). This Court, when interpreting a statute,
must "ascertain and give effect to the intention of the
legislature." Chase v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 266 Va. 544,
547, 587 S.E.2d 521, 522 (2003); accord Boynton v. Kilgore,
271 Va. 220, 227, 623 S.E.2d 922, 925 (2006).
We have stated the following principles that we must
apply when determining whether a statute is ambiguous:
"Language is ambiguous if it admits of being
understood in more than one way or refers to two or
more things simultaneously. Lincoln National Life
Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth Corrugated Container Corp.,
229 Va. 132, 136-37, 327 S.E.2d 98, 101 (1985). An
ambiguity exists when the language is difficult to
comprehend, is of doubtful import, or lacks
clearness and definiteness. Ayres v. Harleysville
Mut. Casualty Co., 172 Va. 383, 393, 2 S.E.2d 303,
307 (1939). If language is clear and unambiguous,
there is no need for construction by the court; the
6
plain meaning and intent of the enactment will be
given it. School Board of Chesterfield County v.
School Board of the City of Richmond, 219 Va. 244,
250, 247 S.E.2d 380, 384 (1978)."
Brown v. Lukhard, 229 Va. 316, 321, 330 S.E.2d 84, 87 (1985);
accord Gillespie v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 753, 758, 636 S.E.2d
430, 432 (2006); Lynch v. Commonwealth Transp. Comm'r, 255 Va.
227, 231, 495 S.E.2d 247, 249 (1998).
Applying the aforementioned principles, we hold that Code
§ 65.2-804(B) is not ambiguous. The language in Code § 65.2-
804(B) is clear, is not difficult to comprehend, and does not
admit of being understood in more than one way. Therefore, in
deciding the meaning of Code § 65.2-804(B), we will consider
the plain language contained therein. VYVX of Va., Inc. v.
Cassell, 258 Va. 276, 292, 519 S.E.2d 124, 132 (1999); Haislip
v. Southern Heritage Ins. Co., 254 Va. 265, 268, 492 S.E.2d
135, 137 (1997); Abbott v. Willey, 253 Va. 88, 91, 479 S.E.2d
528, 530 (1997).
Applying the plain language in Code § 65.2-804(B), we
hold that Travelers was not required to comply with the
notification provisions of that statute. An insurer must
comply with the statutorily prescribed notification mandates
if its policy of insurance is "cancelled or nonrenewed by the
insurer issuing such policy." Code § 65.2-804(B). Travelers
offered to renew the policies but Graycon and Thomas Home
7
Improvements did not pay the workers' compensation and
employers' liability insurance premiums that were required in
order to renew the policies. Graycon and Thomas Home
Improvements voluntarily chose to allow their insurance
policies to expire as contemplated by the specific terms of
those policies. Thus, Graycon and Thomas Home Improvements,
not Travelers, caused the policies of workers' compensation
and employers' liability insurance at issue to expire. Any
contrary construction or application of Code § 65.2-804(B)
would render the phrase "nonrenewed by the insurer issuing
such policy" mere surplusage, which is contrary to the settled
rule in this Commonwealth that every provision in or part of a
statute shall be given effect if possible. Level 3 Commcn's
of Va., Inc. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 268 Va. 471, 477-78, 604
S.E.2d 71, 74 (2004); Cook v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 111, 114,
597 S.E.2d 84, 86 (2004); Tilton v. Commonwealth, 196 Va. 774,
784, 85 S.E.2d 368, 374 (1955).
IV.
We hold that Travelers was not required to comply with
the notice provisions contained in Code § 65.2-804(B) because
the insurance policies that are the subject of this appeal
were not "nonrenewed by the insurer issuing such polic[ies]."
Thus, these insurance policies were not in effect when Ely and
Bailey were injured. In view of our holdings, we need not
8
consider the litigants' remaining arguments. We will reverse
the judgments of the Court of Appeals, and we will enter final
judgments here in favor of Travelers.
Reversed and final judgment.
9